Nicolas Sarkozy passes the Europe of defense to the crusher of history

(BRUSSELS2) At the end of the European summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not satisfied with redefining the structures resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon, he also explained what he understood by the Europe of defence. It was in response to a question from my colleague from Liberation, Jean Quatremer, who challenged him on the result of France's integration into NATO and its expected corollary, the progress made in terms of Europe of the defense. The President of the Republic has denied any breach of his word. European defense exists, to hear it, assumed by a few voluntary European countries, starting and above all by the Franco-British couple. And when it is necessary to have a structure to work with the other partners, "the machinery of NATO" is there. We are thus far from the common European defense and security policy, structured by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Defense Europe = France + Great Britain. Germany on the sidelines

« Defense Europe is based first and foremost on a couple, which is the Franco-British couple, since they are the two most powerful armies in Europe. With whom would you like us to build the Europe of defense in a majority way? In any case not Germany, according to the President of the Republic. " Germany has made a choice. And this choice today is that of the unity of Europe. Germany has a history and the German sensibility does not push them to intervene spontaneously on foreign territories since the end of the Second World War. We must respect the history of the countries »

There is a Europe of defense when the European States lead it

In fact, for the French president, there is indeed a visible European defense. " In this Libyan affair is an initiative of Great Britain and France, two major European countries. The planes that fly are English and French, independently of the others (NB: Americans), but they are also danish (and Spanish as he will specify later in another question). And " there is a General Staff where we are all, in Naples, in Italy, a European country, close to the Mediterranean. Why not use it? »

To organize a military action, two solutions: the United States or NATO

« It takes a framework nation to organize the management of all these planes. “For the French President” There were two solutions, not three: either the United States is the framework nation and coordinates. If the United States is not doing it, why should I oppose the machinery of NATO. (...) From the moment our American friends do not want to be this framework nation, someone has to do it. There is a structure at NATO, there is a machinery, we use it through the command in Naples, there is no problem. (...) Using NATO machinery is not a political problem, frankly. »

... No matter the structure, what matters is political control

« Frankly, I don't see what a political problem that poses when there is the political coordination of the coalition. It's not the NATO forces that will protect the population in Libya, it's the coalition. »

An alternative solution: don't think about it

« Should it have been done differently? » asks the president himself « I ask nothing better than to debate this question. But what was the other solution? Should France be the framework nation? Does that mean that I should have invented a system that would compete with the NATO machinery? Who would have thought that was common sense? “Our colleague is trying to relaunch him on the European General Staff, the president is beating around the bush. " So what about our American friends and our Canadian friends? What do we do with Qatar and the Emiratis then? Are they integrated into the European command? It's interesting. Me, I ask nothing better than to look at that, but finally, to set up a system competing with that which already exists, that did not make sense. »

Sarkozy's Real Politik buries European Defense

(remark) This position is very "realpolitik". We understand that the agreement with British Tory David Cameron requires a tactical adjustment. But the French president goes very far in this adjustment (*).

Nicolas Sarkozy thus buries twenty years of French position in favor of the Europe of Defense (which Alain Juppé even defends). He adopts a position at the antipodes of traditional Gaullism and openly affirms an Atlanticism of conviction and preference. By refusing even to consider the possibility of a European General Staff and by insisting on competition, he endorses the Anglo-American doctrine of European defense (within NATO) with an argument that is not very far from Madeleine Albright's definition of 3D: neither Decoupling, nor Duplication, nor Discrimination.

By defining the Europe of defense as European defense - which is not quite the same - the french president reveals that its commitment made during the reintegration of France into the NATO command of promoting defense Europe had no doubt been misunderstood. Just like the reintegration of NATO which he sums up in a small step forward: we “were part of 18 committees, we rejoined a 19th and we are not part of the 20th”.

The only possibility left the president to keep his promise, not to exasperate the Gaullists and Europeans in his camp too much, while not denying his friendships and his convictions, East... "enhanced cooperation or cooperation structured permanent" which can find an unexpected window of opportunity there.

(*) NB: A close friend of Nicolas Sarkozy will confirm to us, a few minutes after the press conference, the perfect understanding between the two European leaders. Better still, the United Kingdom has played a hitherto unnoticed role in insisting that American partners commit themselves to the coalition. "Cameron was very present. He played a big role with the Americans".